Word Of Wisdom Clarifications

[sjdean]

I, as Im sure you're aware, am one of these people that have been struggling with the Mormon religion for several years. It is something that greatly appeals to me but Im finding it hard to make that leap of faith. Indeed the longer I leave it, the more questions I have.

So I ask these questions, and hope Im not being too controversial - I think they're any questions a prospective new member might ask.

Firstly, I understand that it is up to the individual to contemplate, understand and follow the Word of Wisdom as they believe right, and therefore it is not up for discussion as to whether you should take some cough medicine containing alcohol, or drink green tea. But then by the same point, the Church appears to give guidelines as to what constitutes Strong Drink and Hot Drink.

It concerns me that the Church should not be "omnipotent" with advice.

Secondly, and clarifications like this to what I believe are considered to be scriptures of God, do the clarifications take precendence over anything written? In which case, why not update the Word of Wisdom if it is commanded by God?

Thirdly, are these "clarifications" formal guidance, or are they merely opinion?

Fourthly, what is the difference between Strong Drink and Mild Drink?

Cheers

Simon

[ztodd]

All that I'll say is that sometimes folks get too caught up in defining or drawing the line between guidelines/opinions and commandments. I want to just concentrate on having a testimony of the living prophets and apostles, and of the fact that the Lord said "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (Doc & Cov 1:38). Whether the Lord gave me a guideline or a commandment, I would still want to obey it.

God is our Father, the perfect Father, so He knows what counsel is designed for our happiness, if we will choose to follow it.

[DrewM]

It concerns me that the Church should not be "omnipotent" with advice.

This, in my opinion, is the greatest aspect of the Church. Room is given to each of us to grow and to be close to the Lord for ourselves. The Church is not a legalistic system, our critics notwithstanding.

One of our scriptures reads:

It is not meet that I [the Lord] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant...

The Church teaches basic principles and truths for the most part, and let's us figure out the implications, the "how to's" of such principles. They have taught us that the Word of Wisdom means we should not consume tobacco, alcoholic beverages, tea, and coffee. Some members have looked at that and decided that it is the caffeine in tea and coffee that is bad, and drink decaf coffee or on the other hand abstain from all caffeinated drinks. That is their right. However, those who feel differently shouldn't judge each other on issues where there is no "commandment."

I always thought "mild drinks" referred to drinks that had low alcohol content. However, the Church now clearly teaches that beer (a mild drink) falls into the category of "alcoholic beverages."

[sjdean]

This, in my opinion, is the greatest aspect of the Church. Room is given to each of us to grow and to be close to the Lord for ourselves. The Church is not a legalistic system, our critics notwithstanding.

Ahh. But is it that free to allow us freedom of interpretation?

The problem I see, is that it chooses to define Hot Drinks and Strong Drinks while caring not to define or offer guidance on anything else. Granted I don't know quite what the Church has proclaimed or how much of what it has said is spiritually binding, but if I interpreted the word of wisdom I would see:

A very reasonable instruction that says to avoid strong drink, but that mild drink is Ok. I would interpret both as being alcoholic and a mild alcoholic drink is ok.

I also see another reasonable instruction to avoid hot drinks. I don't read this is tea or coffee, but as hot drink. While I would feel no shame in drinking iced tea, disgusting though it is, I wouldn't drink hot fruit teas for example.

I get the feeling that there is probably something about that. For example, from a Cancer Research website:

There is a possibility that drinking very hot drinks may increase your risk. Some studies have reported up to 3 times the risk in people who regularly drink hot drinks when they are burning hot, rather than warm. Hot drinks may damage the lining of the oesophagus, but this is very difficult to prove.

One of our scriptures reads:

The Church teaches basic principles and truths for the most part, and let's us figure out the implications, the "how to's" of such principles. They have taught us that the Word of Wisdom means we should not consume tobacco, alcoholic beverages, tea, and coffee.

Ahh, but this is my point. It gives us guidelines and ideas and definitions of what the Word of Wisdom really means, but when probed further, offer very little further information other than, "this is what we believe". Either they should be able to offer opinion on all, or nothing.

I have no issue if they want to offer their interpretation as opinion, as long as people are free to choose their own interpretation. But it seems on some parts, people aren't.

Some members have looked at that and decided that it is the caffeine in tea and coffee that is bad, and drink decaf coffee or on the other hand abstain from all caffeinated drinks. That is their right. However, those who feel differently shouldn't judge each other on issues where there is no "commandment."

I don't know how true it is, but I've heard of people who have been denied baptism because they have admitted drinking coffee.

I would hope that when I come to an understanding and decide to join the church, that I wouldn't be "looked down on" for following my own interpretation of the Word of Wisdom.

I always thought "mild drinks" referred to drinks that had low alcohol content. However, the Church now clearly teaches that beer (a mild drink) falls into the category of "alcoholic beverages."

My issue here is that there is the distinction in the word of wisdom between Strong Drink and Mild Drink. And the problem is further compounded for me, because for example the Church has defined what Hot Drink is. And I think it is pretty clear what Strong Drink is. But I've seen no definition of what a Mild Drink is. The church should be able to clarify all, or should clarify none and leave it up to the individual to decide.

I presume the Strong Drink and Mild Drink refers to quantities of alcohol. So at what point does the Mild Drink become Strong?

[HiJolly]

As an active Mormon, I drink zero alcohol. Same for tea and coffee. I can partake of all these things as an LDS member, if I don't care to attend the temple. Other members might look down on me for it, though, since it is against the WoW as presently taught.

If I am not a member, I can't expect to join the Church if I partake of these things. I guess I don't understand what all the quibbling is about.

HiJolly

[carpeomnius]

Ahh. But is it that free to allow us freedom of interpretation?

The problem I see, is that it chooses to define Hot Drinks and Strong Drinks while caring not to define or offer guidance on anything else. Granted I don't know quite what the Church has proclaimed or how much of what it has said is spiritually binding, but if I interpreted the word of wisdom I would see:

A very reasonable instruction that says to avoid strong drink, but that mild drink is Ok. I would interpret both as being alcoholic and a mild alcoholic drink is ok.

I also see another reasonable instruction to avoid hot drinks. I don't read this is tea or coffee, but as hot drink. While I would feel no shame in drinking iced tea, disgusting though it is, I wouldn't drink hot fruit teas for example.

I get the feeling that there is probably something about that. For example, from a Cancer Research website:

Ahh, but this is my point. It gives us guidelines and ideas and definitions of what the Word of Wisdom really means, but when probed further, offer very little further information other than, "this is what we believe". Either they should be able to offer opinion on all, or nothing.

I have no issue if they want to offer their interpretation as opinion, as long as people are free to choose their own interpretation. But it seems on some parts, people aren't.

I don't know how true it is, but I've heard of people who have been denied baptism because they have admitted drinking coffee.

I would hope that when I come to an understanding and decide to join the church, that I wouldn't be "looked down on" for following my own interpretation of the Word of Wisdom.

My issue here is that there is the distinction in the word of wisdom between Strong Drink and Mild Drink. And the problem is further compounded for me, because for example the Church has defined what Hot Drink is. And I think it is pretty clear what Strong Drink is. But I've seen no definition of what a Mild Drink is. The church should be able to clarify all, or should clarify none and leave it up to the individual to decide.

I presume the Strong Drink and Mild Drink refers to quantities of alcohol. So at what point does the Mild Drink become Strong?

The Word of Wisdom declares unequivocally against the internal use of alcohol in any form. "..that inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father" (D&C 89:5). Although the Word of Wisdom was given originally to show the will of God and not as a commandment, abstinence from alcohol was expected of fully participating Church members by the early twentieth century and faithful observance is virtually prerequisite to temple work and leadership callings in the church (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 89).

Concerning tea: Devout Latter-day Saints do not drink teas containing caffeine [i.e. teas containing genuine tea leaves]. This practice derives from an 1833 revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, which states that "hot drinks are not for the body or the belly" (D&C 89:9). Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church, later defined "hot drinks" as coffee and tea (T&S 3 [June 1, 1842]:800), thereby establishing the official interpretation for later generations (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 89). Caffeine, a cerebral and cardiovascular stimulant, has caused health concerns in recent years. The revelation has not been interpreted as proscribing herbal teas, for it states that "all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the Constitution, nature, and use of man" (D&C 89:10).

Abstinence from coffee also has been expected of fully participating members since the early twentieth century.

Concerning "mild drink": Mild drinks are mentioned in D&C 89:17. They are not meant as mild alcoholic drinks as alcohol, in any form, was strictly forbidden. "..that inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father" (D&C 89:5). That separates wine (which is relatively a mild version of an alcoholic drink, some wine less than others) from strong drink, respectively. One must ask what kind of wine was used in the sacrament in the early days of the Church. The Lord's instruction in verse 6 that for the sacrament the Saints use "pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make" reinforces His earlier instruction that "you shall not purchase [for the sacrament] wine neither strong drink of your enemies; "Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you" (D&C 27:3-4). The "pure wine" in Doctrine and Covenants 89:6 is understood to mean new or unfermented grape juice, since the Word of Wisdom declares unequivocally against the internal use of alcohol in any form. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that water was early in the history of the Church substituted for wine, for sacramental purposes. On the other hand, the language of this revelation leaves the impression that a wine with a low level of intoxicant is intended in 89:6. However, how can one be justified in partaking of a mild alcoholic drink on his own when the practice of drinking wine in the sacrament of the Lord has been discontinued?!

The Word of Wisdom and latter revelations both reinforce that alcohol (in ANY form), tea (genuine tea leaves), coffee (even decaf), and tobacco are not for the body and we are commanded not to take them into our bodies.

We might venture into the territory of decaffeinated coffee. The Church advises against coffee and not specifically any single ingredient therein. Although the main chemical in coffee that has caused health concerns is caffeine, a cerebral and cardiovascular stimulant, a large number of other substances are also found in coffee, and their effects on health are not yet well understood. If the Church prohibited the use of coffee solely because it contains caffeine then they would also make an official proclamation against other drinks containing that specific substance (i.e. colas, etc), and they have not!

Now, Elders of Israel, if you have a right to chew tobacco, you have a privilege I have not; if you have a right to drink whiskey, you have a right that I have not; if you have a right to drink coffee and tea you have a privilege I have not; if you have a right to transgress the Word of Wisdom, you have a right that I have not.

[sjdean]

The Word of Wisdom declares unequivocally against the internal use of alcohol in any form. "

But it doesn't.

The Word of Wisdom does not declare anything of the sort. Only the Churches interpretation AFTER Joseph Smith gives that declaration. There are times that I do feel with an absolute certainty that Joseph Smith IS and WAS a prophet, but get worried at what the Church has become and how it appears to change the scripture without seeming to publish them as scripture as Joseph Smith did.

The Word of Wisdom does not say "Thou shall not drink alcohol". Same as it does not say "Thou shall not drink tea and coffee". It makes me wonder if the Word of Wisdom is set out to be deliberately vague. Personally, I tend to have a very big faith in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and can certainly appreciate and recognise the benefits of not drinking quite literally Strong Drinks or Hot Drinks.

7 And, again, astrong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

There's a clear distinction between Strong and Mild drinks. Quite what that distinction is though, Im not quite sure. If we imagine the word "Drink" to mean alcohol, at what point does a Mild drink become a strong drink.

Obviously Im open to persuasion to get over my query. Im hoping that maybe Mild might mean say what some people suggesting 1% alcohol, or maybe Mild means non-alcoholic - although that to me is a huge leap of the imagination.

Concerning "mild drink": Mild drinks are mentioned in D&C 89:17. They are not meant as mild alcoholic drinks as alcohol, in any form, was strictly forbidden. "..that inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father" (D&C 89:5). That separates wine (which is relatively a mild version of an alcoholic drink, some wine less than others) from strong drink,

True but...

5 That inasmuch as any man adrinketh bwine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

...The problem is, within the scripture here, we have these three drinks. Strong Drink, forbidden. Wine, forbidden (unless offering sacraments), while Mild Drinks are apparently Ok (well, it doesn't rule it out).

So saying Wine is a "mild drink" as referenced in D&C 89 is a bit odd, as the last I checked, Wine was made from Grapes and not barley. In the WoW, Wine isn't the mild drink.

The Word of Wisdom and latter revelations both reinforce that alcohol (in ANY form), tea (genuine tea leaves), coffee (even decaf), and tobacco are not for the body and we are commanded not to take them into our bodies.

Again though, only the latter revelations reinforce this. It does concern me somewhat. In that we either have someone who is the Prophet of God getting his wording wrong, or God getting his wording wrong and using such ambiguous terms as "Hot Drinks" instead of just Tea and Coffee - which they had at the time did they not?

Or another contemplation, is that God is correct, Joseph Smith is correct, it is plain and simple language meaning Strong Drinks are forbidden and so are Hot Drinks in any shape or form but somewhere along the way the Church has corrupted the teachings.

It's a really insane concept to me to change the literal meaning of the divinely inspired!

[ztodd]

It's not a good idea for you to accuse the church of corrupting its own teachings in this forum and of following an insane concept.

What is it exactly that concerns you? Recent prophets clarifying how scripture ought to interpreted? Receiving further instruction and commandments from recent prophets? Does this just boil down to the question of whether you believe we still have prophets in the church receiving true revelation?

The Word of Wisdom is a prime example of where people can get hung up over letter of the law vs. spirit of the law, and of being tripped up in a "gospel hobby".

From "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall" Oct 1994 Ensign - http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi..._&hideNav=1 :

"A desire to follow a prophet is surely a great and appropriate strength, but even this has its potentially dangerous manifestations. I have heard of more than one group so intent on following the words of a dead prophet that they have rejected the teachings and counsel of the living ones. Satan has used that corruption from the beginning of the Restoration. You will recall Joseph Smith’s direction for the Saints to gather in Kirtland, Ohio, then in Missouri, and then in Illinois. At each place along the way, a certain number of Saints fell away, crying “fallen prophet” as their excuse for adhering to the earlier words and rejecting the current direction. The same thing happened after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, when some Saints seized upon one statement or another by the deceased Prophet as a basis for sponsoring or joining a new group that rejected the counsel of the living prophets.

Following the prophet is a great strength, but it needs to be consistent and current, lest it lead to the spiritual downfall that comes from rejecting continuous revelation. Under that principle, the most important difference between dead prophets and living ones is that those who are dead are not here to receive and declare the Lord’s latest words to his people. If they were, there would be no differences among the messages of the prophets."

[sjdean]

It's not a good idea for you to accuse the church of corrupting its own teachings in this forum and of following an insane concept.

Understood, I hope I was a little more tactful than that. I just quite often more than not extend my thoughts to probably their most illogical conclusion. It's something I struggle with. LDS is a religion I've had great interest in and great desire to seek and follow for many many years. But I keep finding I have questions. I believe there is something written about contention isn't there?

What is it exactly that concerns you? Recent prophets clarifying how scripture ought to interpreted? Receiving further instruction and commandments from recent prophets? Does this just boil down to the question of whether you believe we still have prophets in the church receiving true revelation?

I suppose as things change, life progresses, we get new technologies, new foods whatever, it makes sense that there should be continued revelation, commandments and reinforcements of how we are living life. I think that's fair enough. We need revelation relevent to the life we live today.

The egg cracked, if that is indeed a metaphor, when I started thinking just how simple, logical, and masterful the original Word of Wisdom is. It's simplicitly is understandable and I see the reasons behind it now.

It just gives me personally great concern to see that clarification would be required for something that seems so simple and easy to follow. It doesn't really even seem to add anything pertinent to our time. And then to change it from being a piece of advice, to being a commandment. Then there are things which could probably do with some clarification and definition, and instead it is chosen to put them under a big umbrella called alcohol.

The Word of Wisdom is a prime example of where people can get hung up over letter of the law vs. spirit of the law, and of being tripped up in a "gospel hobby".

That's the thing. Shouldn't it be taken at its most simplest? Forget the science behind caffeine, or tannins or what have you. There was a requirement to refrain from hot drinks, which mean tea or coffee. Now whether this means hot tea and hot coffee as hot drinks is another issue - I see no reason why it conceivably couldn't. But Im splitting heirs (or is it hairs?).

Sorry for the big snip right here.

One of the things going through my mind earlier today was about revelation. In, shouldn't the revelation that made it into the Word of Wisdom be infallible? To suggest it is incorrect now isn't that pouring scourn on Joseph Smith? And if the argument is that it was only loosely given as a requirement with a vague definition back in 1830 because more revelation would follow as the church became stronger and its people able to accept such revelation, isn't that a bit wrong? Shouldn't God be accurate with his people? Shouldn't a commandment be a full commandment whether people like it or not?

I guess my understanding of the Bible and religion isn't all that great, for which I humbly apologise.

I have been reading the Fourteen Fundamentals and it makes some real great sense.

Top site.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

The key points I saw, were:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

I could argue that isn't that either what Joseph Smith did in not being accurate, or what current Church prophets are doing in going against Joseph Smith.

Then it hit me quite simply again

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean "Todays News Today." God's revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation.

I do love questionning and getting an answer like that that it's impossible to argue with. It's just true isn't it?

I apologise to all if I have caused any offence. I hope you know in your hearts that I do not mean it and really am just actively curious.

I'd still like a definition of Mild Drinks though.

:-)

Thanks

Simon

[carpeomnius]

But it doesn't.

The Word of Wisdom does not declare anything of the sort. Only the Churches interpretation AFTER Joseph Smith gives that declaration. There are times that I do feel with an absolute certainty that Joseph Smith IS and WAS a prophet, but get worried at what the Church has become and how it appears to change the scripture without seeming to publish them as scripture as Joseph Smith did.

The Word of Wisdom does not say "Thou shall not drink alcohol". Same as it does not say "Thou shall not drink tea and coffee". It makes me wonder if the Word of Wisdom is set out to be deliberately vague. Personally, I tend to have a very big faith in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and can certainly appreciate and recognise the benefits of not drinking quite literally Strong Drinks or Hot Drinks.

There's a clear distinction between Strong and Mild drinks. Quite what that distinction is though, Im not quite sure. If we imagine the word "Drink" to mean alcohol, at what point does a Mild drink become a strong drink.

Obviously Im open to persuasion to get over my query. Im hoping that maybe Mild might mean say what some people suggesting 1% alcohol, or maybe Mild means non-alcoholic - although that to me is a huge leap of the imagination.

True but...

...The problem is, within the scripture here, we have these three drinks. Strong Drink, forbidden. Wine, forbidden (unless offering sacraments), while Mild Drinks are apparently Ok (well, it doesn't rule it out).

So saying Wine is a "mild drink" as referenced in D&C 89 is a bit odd, as the last I checked, Wine was made from Grapes and not barley. In the WoW, Wine isn't the mild drink.

Again though, only the latter revelations reinforce this. It does concern me somewhat. In that we either have someone who is the Prophet of God getting his wording wrong, or God getting his wording wrong and using such ambiguous terms as "Hot Drinks" instead of just Tea and Coffee - which they had at the time did they not?

Or another contemplation, is that God is correct, Joseph Smith is correct, it is plain and simple language meaning Strong Drinks are forbidden and so are Hot Drinks in any shape or form but somewhere along the way the Church has corrupted the teachings.

It's a really insane concept to me to change the literal meaning of the divinely inspired!

It is perfectly your perogative if you wish to sustain the beliefs of dead prophets and ignore the counsel of living ones. It truly is easier to believe in and accept the teachings of past prophets than to sustain and heed the words of living ones. Hyrum Smith, who was also a prophet, seer, and revelator confirmed the belief that hot drinks means tea and coffee. In the words of Joseph Smith "get over it, if you can." For one reason or another, many cannot.

"Be smart. Do not be so shortsighted as to indulge in the use of alcohol...Beer and other forms of alcohol will do you no good. Their use will be expensive, will dull your conscience, and could lead to the disease called alcoholism, which is humiliating, dangerous, and even deadly. The Word of Wisdom...is a divine code of health received through revelation in 1833. It proscribes alcohol and tobacco, tea and coffee...Some people argue over whether it [the Word of Wisdom] is a commandment. I do not need to argue. As far as I am concerned, whether it is a commandment or counsel, that which the Lord counsels becomes a commandment to Gordon B. Hinckley. I hope it does to you." (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley)

"...'Hot drinks are not for the body.' This is tea and coffee." says Spencer W. Kimball...believe him or believe him not, for he was truly a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. Spencer W. Kimball does not equivocate in denouncing these things. Said he, in the name of the Lord, mind you, "Thou shalt not use tea, coffee, tobacco or liquor." (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball)

"The prophets have taught that we should not partake of tea, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, or any substance that contains illegal drugs or harmful or habit-forming ingredients. In a world where so much of this is both acceptable and accessible, we encourage you to walk squarely on the Lord's side of the line. Do not tamper with any of these substances, nor similar products which give the "appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22)...We complicate the simplicity of the Word of Wisdom. The Lord said don't drink tea, coffee, or use tobacco or liquor and that admonition is simple." (Teachings of Howard W. Hunter)

"Most of us are acquainted with some of the prohibitions, such as no tea, coffee, tobacco, or alcohol." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson)

"The Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks." (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young)

In case you are not familiar with the definition of spirituous here you go from the American Heritage Dictionary: "1. Having the nature of or containing alcohol; alcoholic. 2. Distilled. Used of an alcoholic beverage."

If you have a problem with the definition of abstain, well, here you go from the same dictionary: "1. To refrain from something by one's own choice: abstain from traditional political rhetoric. See Synonyms at refrain. 2. To refrain from voting: Forty senators voted in favor of the bill, 45 voted against it, and 15 abstained."

"I recollect a circumstance that occurred three years ago in a party that I was traveling with. There were one or two who persisted in having their tea and coffee at every place they stopped. I preached the Word of Wisdom right along; but they said, ‘What does it matter? Here is So-and-so, who drinks tea and coffee.’ … I said at one time, ‘Oh, yes, you say it is a good thing to drink a little tea or coffee, but the Lord says it is not. What shall I follow?’ The Lord says that if we will observe the Word of Wisdom we shall have access to great treasures of knowledge, and hidden treasures; we shall run and not be weary, we shall walk and not faint; and the destroying angel shall pass us by, as he did the children of Israel, and not slay us. … I will pray for you and earnestly beseech you, my brethren and sisters, … to cease practicing these forbidden things, and observe the laws of God.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith)

Joseph Smith, himself, is quoted as having taught: "I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said 'hot drinks' in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Tea and coffee are what the Lord meant when he said 'hot drinks.'" (John A. Widtsoe, The Word of Wisdom, pp. 75-92.)

"The Lord’s command that we abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee also runs counter to the traditions of many." (Dallin H. Oaks, in "Repentance and Change," Liahona, November 2003)

"Soon after the restoration of the gospel and organization of the Church, the Lord gave a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith which we call the Word of Wisdom. It warned that tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco, among other things, were not good for man, and should not be used by the Saints." ("The Debate is Over," President N. Eldon Tanner)

"It [the WOW] is also noted for its prohibition—absolute prohibition—against the use of alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee." ("Run and Not be Weary," Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the 12)

"It [the WoW] proscribes alcohol and tobacco, tea and coffee...I regret that we as a people do not observe it more faithfully." (Gordon B. Hinckley, "Mormon should mean More Good")

On Mormon.org "In addition to emphasizing the benefits of proper eating and physical and spiritual health, God has spoken against the use of: Tobacco. Alcohol. Coffee and tea. Harmful, habit-forming drugs."

(http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-commandments/obey-the-word-of-wisdom?src=tv)

"They should be striving to keep all of the Lord’s commandments, including praying, paying a full tithe, being honest in word and deed, and abstaining from the use of tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful and habit-forming substances." (Howard W. Hunter, The Presidents of the Church Teachers manual)

"His Word of Wisdom includes sound nutritional guidance and simple instructions. We are not to drink alcoholic beverages. (See D&C 89:5–7.) We are not to use tobacco. (See D&C 89:8.) We are not to drink tea or coffee. (See D&C 89:9.)" (Russell M. Nelson, “Addiction or Freedom,” Ensign, Nov 1988, 6)

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on...ad infinitum. The bottom line is that it really depends on whether or not you believe in continuing revelation, and it depends on whether or not you believe that Joseph Smith's successors were receiving revelation even as Joseph Smith, himself, did. I have it from the Lord in personal revelation that Joseph's successors, Brigham Young, John Taylor, etc were all, indeed, Prophets, Seers, and Revelators and they spoke the revelations of God when they said that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment and forbids the use of tobacco, alcohol, tea, and coffee. I believe that our modern prophets will still continue to say that the Lord forbids the use of those things in future revelations. All of our lesson manuals which mention the Word of Wisdom forbid the use of these things. All of them were written with the oversight of the First Presidency of the Church. It is absolutely clear that alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee are forbidden by way of commandment of the Lord and "get over it, if you can"!

[tubaloth]

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cInst...32493000_29.pdf

Shouldn't God be accurate with his people? Shouldn't a commandment be a full commandment whether people like it or not?

Should God? I guess he Should, but God knows what the Church could handle, at that time. Was it in the best intrest for the Church to kick everybody out that didn't obey this law right when it was given? Probably not!

We also trust in the Lords timing. Not this isn't to say that this so called "advice" wasn't followed until years later. Reading the history of the church showed that if you had (or I guess wanted) a leadership calling you needed to follow the word of wisdom. There are many "counsels" there were called before the church, because leaders weren't setting a good example, including not following the word of wisdom.

I can see how you want the scritpures to tell you exacly what they should say. It doesn't always happen that way, and why we aren't all left to our own interpratation. When things become unclear (as you have proven) we have a prophet to add more light and knowledge on the subject. Now I know you don't feel that WOW is unclearn. And thus the problem you have. But over the years sense the word of wisdom has given that add light was given to fully understand what the word of wisdom means. Again we go by more of the spirit of what the word of wisodom means, then listing every bad thing that we shouldn't take into our body.

Then again if anybody in the church ever had a question if something was "okay" to take, we can talk to our local bishop and ask.

[drjme]

I'd still like a definition of Mild Drinks though.

:-)

Thanks

Simon

Why do you need complete clarification of 'mild drinks'? So you could go have a few brews and not feel guilty? you seem to have had interest in the church for a number of years, but if you are still maintaining standards not in tune with LDS standards or you are looking to justify current actions to conform LDS teachings to your current lifestyle, then you are starting off on the wrong foot. If you are just asking a simple question then I apologize.

It's clarified NO alcohol as in 'Strong drinks'. Hot drinks of the day were tea and coffee, Don't drink them. Joseph didn't need to be told 'coffee contains cancer causing carcinogens' or 'tea contains an addictive stimulant called caffeine' As we can see the wisdom of God is clarified years later by modern science and technology. If you need confirmation of what 'mild drinks' are then maybe you need to take what your interpretation of mild drinks is and pray to God for clarification with a true heart. If you are refering to mild alcoholic beverages, we already know we are not to drink them. what specifically is your interpretation of mild drinks?

[sjdean]

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cInst...32493000_29.pdf

Should God? I guess he Should, but God knows what the Church could handle, at that time. Was it in the best intrest for the Church to kick everybody out that didn't obey this law right when it was given? Probably not!

We also trust in the Lords timing. Not this isn't to say that this so called "advice" wasn't followed until years later. Reading the history of the church showed that if you had (or I guess wanted) a leadership calling you needed to follow the word of wisdom. There are many "counsels" there were called before the church, because leaders weren't setting a good example, including not following the word of wisdom.

When I was reading that "Fourteen Fundamentals" website, the things I were reading made everything click into place. It was quite illuminating.

Obviously Im still reading the Bible, so I don't know how the Lord works, but what I have picked up, is that the Lord can't overwhelm us with instruction and commandment. It would have the effect of putting people off and wouldn't be condusive.

Just because more information is revealed at a later date, doesn't make the information that was revealed to begin with wrong or innaccurate. It was just what was needed at the time.

It's amazing when everything hooks together.

[sjdean]

Why do you need complete clarification of 'mild drinks'? So you could go have a few brews and not feel guilty? you seem to have had interest in the church for a number of years, but if you are still maintaining standards not in tune with LDS standards or you are looking to justify current actions to conform LDS teachings to your current lifestyle, then you are starting off on the wrong foot. If you are just asking a simple question then I apologize.

It's clarified NO alcohol as in 'Strong drinks'. Hot drinks of the day were tea and coffee, Don't drink them. Joseph didn't need to be told 'coffee contains cancer causing carcinogens' or 'tea contains an addictive stimulant called caffeine' As we can see the wisdom of God is clarified years later by modern science and technology. If you need confirmation of what 'mild drinks' are then maybe you need to take what your interpretation of mild drinks is and pray to God for clarification with a true heart. If you are refering to mild alcoholic beverages, we already know we are not to drink them. what specifically is your interpretation of mild drinks?

I do not keep the LDS doctrine of no alcohol or many of its other requirements. But then, I am not LDS and class myself merely as a potential convert who is investigating and trying to come to their own understanding. I am aware however of the benefits and dangers of alcohol and Im coming to an understanding though that you know what, it isn't that great. I'd much rather have a hamburger. Why do I want to destroy half of my brain and half of my finances on drink! Can't I have a good time with Orange Juice?

The clarification that I seek/sought, isn't about wanting to maintain an activity in contravention of the word of God. It's not about finding an excuse. If the position is flatly no alcohol, then no alcohol it is. I think that was where I was originally coming from too in asking whether the Church's clarification is a formal guidance to be obeyed or merely an opinion that could allow you to interpret the Word of Wisdom your way.

Again, it's not that I would be seeking an excuse to drink behind the backs of people or anything. But if the Church were to clarify that Mild Drink does mean beer and beer is OK in moderation, then many people, myself included might like to enjoy in partaking of a legal activity. But its not, so I wouldn't.

[drjme]

I do not keep the LDS doctrine of no alcohol or many of its other requirements. But then, I am not LDS and class myself merely as a potential convert who is investigating and trying to come to their own understanding. I am aware however of the benefits and dangers of alcohol and Im coming to an understanding though that you know what, it isn't that great. I'd much rather have a hamburger. Why do I want to destroy half of my brain and half of my finances on drink! Can't I have a good time with Orange Juice?

The clarification that I seek/sought, isn't about wanting to maintain an activity in contravention of the word of God. It's not about finding an excuse. If the position is flatly no alcohol, then no alcohol it is. I think that was where I was originally coming from too in asking whether the Church's clarification is a formal guidance to be obeyed or merely an opinion that could allow you to interpret the Word of Wisdom your way.

Again, it's not that I would be seeking an excuse to drink behind the backs of people or anything. But if the Church were to clarify that Mild Drink does mean beer and beer is OK in moderation, then many people, myself included might like to enjoy in partaking of a legal activity. But its not, so I wouldn't.

The best way to put it is: What is easier? having a blurry line as to what is classed a strong/mild drink and letting people decide what amount of alcohol is acceptable to them ( and so opening themselves up to a whole load of unnecessary temptation through drunkeness) or advising complete abstinence from alcohol IMO making it very clear what we can and can't have.

I have friends who are non lds Christians, who's beliefs allow them to drink alcohol. they do and it affects them spiritually. generally they don't have the same amount of 'spiritual depth' as LDS/Christians who do keep the WOW. I have a friend who is non lds who went for complete abstinence by his own choice and has grown spiritually amazingly fast.

The WOW is amazing in that it doesn't actually restrict you, it actually frees you from habits and activities that are detrimental to your spiritual and physical and mental health. when it comes down to the nitty gritty, people who generally indulge in alcohol, even though they say they could quit it, find it very hard to, and so are chained to that habit, especially since they view it as a pleasurable pass time that they control, not that controls them.

[sjdean]

The best way to put it is: What is easier? having a blurry line as to what is classed a strong/mild drink

Mild Drink in the original WoW talked specifically about Barley. I guess its true that there could be stronger and stronger beers but...

and letting people decide what amount of alcohol is acceptable to them ( and so opening themselves up to a whole load of unnecessary temptation through drunkeness) or advising complete abstinence from alcohol IMO making it very clear what we can and can't have.

My political persuasion says liberalism all the time. The problem I see is that people aren't educated to take responsibility. People are not educated to listen to their own bodies. There are a few drinkers who draw their own line, they know how it affects them, and apart from a bit of a headache, blurry vision and a sore throat, they don't become neanderthol aggressive morons looking to pick a fight. I agree, that many can't handle a drink and shouldn't be drinking at all. But alas, I do not think that should necessarily be the place of the government or a church to regulate an individuals behaviour.

My political ideas says that if something is banned, are we really mastering the temptation? Surely it is when you are controlling the temptation instead of letting it control you - or cutting the temptation out together, when you are mentally strong.

I have friends who are non lds Christians, who's beliefs allow them to drink alcohol. they do and it affects them spiritually. generally they don't have the same amount of 'spiritual depth' as LDS/Christians who do keep the WOW. I have a friend who is non lds who went for complete abstinence by his own choice and has grown spiritually amazingly fast.

Just a simple thought here... I have recollections of people imagining that doing something is particularly good, and feeling smug and proud because of it. Is it genuine spirituality or a false kind of spirituality? Im putting this thought out wrong. I can't explain properly.

I guess did spirituality genuinely come about because of abstinence, or was abstinence the by-product of a wanting to be more spiritual and a smug sense of superiority?

Clearly you know your friend more than I do. I just know people who do things for the wrong reasons and pretend to be spiritual when they aren't.

The WOW is amazing in that it doesn't actually restrict you, it actually frees you from habits and activities that are detrimental to your spiritual and physical and mental health. when it comes down to the nitty gritty, people who generally indulge in alcohol, even though they say they could quit it, find it very hard to, and so are chained to that habit, especially since they view it as a pleasurable pass time that they control, not that controls them.

I could give up alcohol. I'd find it a struggle. I generally don't drink around the house. I might have an odd one every now and again when I could just go for that taste. When I do drink, it's usually socially, and it is that social aspect/peer pressure that would be difficult for me to overcome.

[MorningStar]

Whether beer was originally included in "mild drinks", I feel blessed that we have a prophet now that tells us to abstain from all alcoholic beverages considering the huge problem alcoholism is.

I say mild drinks includes hot chocolate.

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned (too lazy to read all of the thread). But, the clarification of what a "strong drink" is as well as what was meant by "hot drinks" was given by Joseph Smith (and also Hyrum) a short period after the revelation was received. Joel Hills Johnson records one such instance of Joseph giving a clarification in his journal.

[Drimcynn]

People are all at different levels of understanding or levels of spirituality. Clarification and revelation constantly are flowing. I have no problem believing that The definitions by Joseph and his Brother Hyrum after the revelation was given isn't good enough.

Though I would debate with some members the reasons. Specifically the focus on caffiene by some. Coffee & Tea are harmful in many respects.

I do it not only because the promise heavenly father gives us in doctrine & covenants but because it is a commandment. That is from my heavenly father.

I think it is great that they clarify for new members or investigators some of the basics to help understand the beginning principles of the Word of Wisdom but since it doesn't stop with just strong and hot drinks the spirit will direct you and you will know if you are playing on the wrong side of the fence in this topic.

[jadams_4040]

I, as Im sure you're aware, am one of these people that have been struggling with the Mormon religion for several years. It is something that greatly appeals to me but Im finding it hard to make that leap of faith. Indeed the longer I leave it, the more questions I have.

So I ask these questions, and hope Im not being too controversial - I think they're any questions a prospective new member might ask.

Firstly, I understand that it is up to the individual to contemplate, understand and follow the Word of Wisdom as they believe right, and therefore it is not up for discussion as to whether you should take some cough medicine containing alcohol, or drink green tea. But then by the same point, the Church appears to give guidelines as to what constitutes Strong Drink and Hot Drink.

It concerns me that the Church should not be "omnipotent" with advice.

Secondly, and clarifications like this to what I believe are considered to be scriptures of God, do the clarifications take precendence over anything written? In which case, why not update the Word of Wisdom if it is commanded by God?

Thirdly, are these "clarifications" formal guidance, or are they merely opinion?

Fourthly, what is the difference between Strong Drink and Mild Drink?

Cheers

Simon

Anyone can go on and on with what constitures W.O.W guidlines e.t.c.....And all i will say is that actually living the W.O.W to the max "will" bring you blessings untold. I know this because i have lived it on both sides. And thats good enough to convince me!

[Guest Iggy]

Talking as an ex wife of a raving alcoholic, beer is NOT a mild drink. Alcohol is alcohol. One 12 oz bottle of beer is equal in alcohol content to one oz glass of wine and 1 oz of bourbon/vodka/gin/etc. That one ounce of "hard liquor" is generally added to 4 to 6 oz of mixer (soda pop, juice, water) that is poured into a glass that is packed with ice.

So to the poster who wants a clarification of what a mild drink is- when I have been asked for a mild drink the person doing the asking is generally asking for a soda or juice or even kool-ade.

I have heard my Stake President state in Stake Conference that de-caffeinated coffees and teas and Near Beers (about 2% - 1% alcohol) are NOT okay to consume.

Works good for me.

[drjme]

Mild Drink in the original WoW talked specifically about Barley. I guess its true that there could be stronger and stronger beers but...

My political persuasion says liberalism all the time. The problem I see is that people aren't educated to take responsibility. People are not educated to listen to their own bodies. There are a few drinkers who draw their own line, they know how it affects them, and apart from a bit of a headache, blurry vision and a sore throat, they don't become neanderthol aggressive morons looking to pick a fight. I agree, that many can't handle a drink and shouldn't be drinking at all.

And isn't that the reason abstinence is so much simpler?

But alas, I do not think that should necessarily be the place of the government or a church to regulate an individuals behaviour.

Well how about God through His ordained Psrophet recommending what you should or shouldn't do? Ultimately you still have the choice to partake or not the choice is never taken away, it just depends if you trust God that it could possibly be more beneficial for you.

My political ideas says that if something is banned, are we really mastering the temptation? Surely it is when you are controlling the temptation instead of letting it control you - or cutting the temptation out together, when you are mentally strong.

Unfortunately temptation never ends (it will one day but not while the earth is as it is) We do our best to avoid putting ourselves in situations of temptation.

there is no need to invite the devil into your life and play a game of 'see how long you can withstand the temptation'.

You don't turn on the 'playboy' channel and see if you can not watch it.

Just a simple thought here... I have recollections of people imagining that doing something is particularly good, and feeling smug and proud because of it. Is it genuine spirituality or a false kind of spirituality? Im putting this thought out wrong. I can't explain properly.

I guess did spirituality genuinely come about because of abstinence, or was abstinence the by-product of a wanting to be more spiritual and a smug sense of superiority?

what you refer to are religious 'hobbies' and we are advised to avoid them. And the answer is no it is not the 'false kind of spirituality'

eg. they stopped drinking(even socially, not necessarily to get 'off their face') which led to not going to nightclubs, which in turn led to removing themselves from situations and environments of drunkeness, sin and general immorality. putting themselves in a better place with a clearer mind and will to become closer to God. The ones I know that haven't given it up are still in same place with the same struggles they have had for a long time. I believe though the few changes they make in their lives are a catalyst to make many changes in their lives, for the better.

I could give up alcohol. I'd find it a struggle. I generally don't drink around the house. I might have an odd one every now and again when I could just go for that taste. When I do drink, it's usually socially, and it is that social aspect/peer pressure that would be difficult for me to overcome.

and isn't that just a chain that binds you?

I was inactive through my teenage years. I made too many excuses for too long as to why I couldn't go back to church. I was determined that I wasn't going to go back to church while I was living the life I was. I also struggled with drinking because of the peer pressure aspect. So I removed myself from that situation. making the decision to stop and knowing that I was for real, gave me an empowerment to make a huge amount of changes all at once in many areas of my life to get me back on the right path. Looking back, It was the best thing I could have done and I don't miss it in the slightest.

[Sheelah]

I think this thread is a prime example of D&C 89:3

3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

There is just always someone that has to know how far they can go before it is too far.

[Guest Iggy]

This is totally off topic and outside the venue of religion - any religion. This is my personal observation and sjdean you would do well to heed drjme post

I could give up alcohol. I'd find it a struggle. I generally don't drink around the house. I might have an odd one every now and again when I could just go for that taste. When I do drink, it's usually socially, and it is that social aspect/peer pressure that would be difficult for me to overcome.

This is EXACTLY what my 1st husband used to tout to me, to the Diversion Instructor where he had to go after his 3rd DUII, to the Judge after he totaled the pickup in a drunken stupor (his blood alcohol at the time was .28, done by blood test at the hospital prior to putting his right leg back together)

I only drink socially. To have a good time.

sjdean- you are stating here that you are caving in to peer pressure to drink. What, you are not capable of standing up and saying NO?

[sjdean]

This is totally off topic and outside the venue of religion - any religion. This is my personal observation and sjdean you would do well to heed drjme post

This is EXACTLY what my 1st husband used to tout to me, to the Diversion Instructor where he had to go after his 3rd DUII, to the Judge after he totaled the pickup in a drunken stupor (his blood alcohol at the time was .28, done by blood test at the hospital prior to putting his right leg back together)

No, no no no, no no no. This is totally out of order and you would be wise to apologise. I do not, and have never EVER under any circumstances abused alcohol. I found those that do despicable. You DO NOT know me and trying to draw conclusions and comparisons between your 1st husband and me and to use that to a reference as to what someone might do is dreadful.

Im sorry that you've seen the worse side to drink Iggy, I really am. I've seen it too. But do NOT ever under ANY circumstance try to tar people with the brush.

I never drink and drive and I never drink irresponsibly.

I only drink socially. To have a good time.

sjdean- you are stating here that you are caving in to peer pressure to drink. What, you are not capable of standing up and saying NO?

No. That is not what Im saying. I am not caving in to peer pressure to drink. I like to have a drink - in moderation. I drink because I want to. What I do say is different, in that if I didn't want to drink it might be a bit difficult overcoming the peer pressure initially, but no biggy. But I do not drink because people around me are drinking.

You are casting aspersions on my character and good name and judging me out of context - this is out of order. Please apologise.

Cheers

Simon